HB1460 targets investor-owned single-family rental housing by imposing new price and disclosure rules for landlords who own multiple residential rental properties. The bill requires landlords to provide tenants with specific rental-price information, restricts fees and utility charges, authorizes civil penalties and license suspensions, and directs the Department of Housing and Community Development to publish a public registry of investor-landlords.
The proposal reshapes regulation for a segment of the rental market that has expanded rapidly: single-family homes owned by investors. Compliance will require operational changes for owners and managers (new forms, sworn statements, and registry filings), while tenants gain transparency and private enforcement remedies including treble damages and injunctive relief.
At a Glance
What It Does
Applies to single-family rental properties owned by persons with two or more rental homes and sets limits on monthly rent, utility pass-throughs, and mandatory fees. It requires landlords to provide a sworn disclosure of fair market rent, last sale price, and the calculated maximum allowable rent before a lease or renewal, and it establishes administrative and private enforcement mechanisms.
Who It Affects
Investor-landlords who own two or more single-family rentals, professional property managers, and tenants in those units. State and local housing authorities and the Attorney General gain enforcement roles; the Department must maintain a public registry of such landlords.
Why It Matters
This bill treats investor-owned single-family rentals like a regulated housing submarket by combining price limits, transparency mandates, and a public contact registry. For compliance officers and landlords it creates recordkeeping and disclosure obligations; for tenant advocates it creates new remedies and data to monitor rent practices.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
HB1460 builds a small but specific regulatory framework aimed only at single-family homes owned by investors — defined as anyone who owns two or more residential rental properties in Maryland. The core regulatory tool is a ceiling on what a landlord may charge: the statute creates a “maximum allowable rent” that landlords cannot exceed, and it separately caps what landlords can pass through for utilities and other mandatory fees.
The bill sets out how to calculate that ceiling. It ties the maximum allowable rent to the greater of two measures: 120% of the HUD-published Fair Market Rent (FMR) for the ZIP code where the property sits, or 120% of the dwelling’s last recorded sale price divided by 12 (to approximate a monthly housing cost).
Landlords may only recover utility costs to the extent they are documented, and they may not impose more than $100 per month in additional mandatory fees; the statute also bans fee structures intended to circumvent those limits.Before signing a lease or renewing one, landlords must provide a sworn statement in the tenant’s primary language listing three numbers: the FMR used, the dwelling’s last sale price, and the maximum allowable rent computed under the formula. The bill creates dual enforcement channels: tenants harmed by violations can sue for injunctive relief, reasonable attorney’s fees, and treble damages, while the Department of Housing and Community Development (for publicly assisted housing) or the Maryland Office of the Attorney General (for private rental properties) can impose civil fines up to $10,000 and work with local housing authorities to suspend rental licenses.HB1460 also requires the Department to maintain a publicly accessible registry of investor-owned single-family rental landlords.
Landlords must register contact information, the principal agent, and addresses; knowingly supplying false registry information triggers administrative fines, license suspensions, and a possible prohibition on offering rental property for up to three years. Finally, the bill prohibits landlord retaliation against tenants who assert their rights or report violations and provides specific remedies if retaliation occurs.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill applies to any owner who holds two or more residential rental properties in Maryland — that ownership threshold determines coverage.
Maximum allowable rent is the greater of 120% of the HUD Fair Market Rent for the property’s ZIP code or 120% of the property’s last recorded sale price divided by 12.
Landlords may only charge tenants the documented cost of utilities and no more than $100 per month in additional mandatory fees; the statute bars fee structures that attempt to circumvent those caps.
Tenants can sue for injunctive relief, recover reasonable attorney’s fees, and obtain treble (triple) damages for violations; enforcement authorities (DHCD or the Attorney General) may also fine landlords up to $10,000 and suspend rental licenses.
DHCD must publish a public registry of investor-owned single-family rental landlords; providing false registry information can trigger fines up to $10,000, license suspension, and a ban on leasing for up to three years.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Definitions and coverage trigger
This section defines the statute’s vocabulary and makes the investor-owned threshold explicit: a landlord qualifies as an investor for these rules if the owner holds two or more residential rental properties in the State. It also defines single-family rental, fair market rent (as HUD’s published annual FMR), and the formula for maximum allowable rent — the two alternative bases (FMR or last sale price/12) will drive most compliance calculations and disputes.
Scope and exemptions
The statute applies only to investor-owned single-family rentals and lists narrow exemptions: owner-occupied residences where only part of the home is rented, properties under long-term affordability covenants, and licensed kinship or foster care homes. Practically, that means many small landlords who live on-site and regulated affordable units are outside the rule, but standard investor portfolios and corporate owners fall squarely inside.
Price caps, disclosures, enforcement, and anti-retaliation
This is the operational heart of the bill. It forbids charging more than the maximum allowable rent, the documented utility cost, or more than $100 per month in additional mandatory fees, and it bans schemes to bypass those limits. It requires a sworn disclosure—delivered in the tenant’s primary language—listing the FMR, the property’s last sale price, and the computed maximum allowable rent before lease execution or renewal. Enforcement is both private and public: tenants may sue for injunctions, fees, and treble damages; DHCD or the Attorney General may fine up to $10,000 and, with local housing authorities, suspend rental licenses. The anti-retaliation clause adds a tenant remedy that can force a 12-month lease renewal at the maximum allowable rent and permits additional fines if the landlord retaliates.
Public registry and penalties for false information
DHCD must create and maintain a publicly accessible registry of investor-landlords. Required filings include legal name, primary address (or business address for entities), active contact details, and a principal agent. The section establishes penalties for false registry submissions: mandatory correction, civil fines up to $10,000, collaboration with county authorities to suspend rental licenses, and a prohibition on offering a property for lease for up to three years. The registry creates an enforcement and transparency tool but also imposes an administrative filing requirement on landlords.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Housing across all five countries.
Explore Housing in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Tenants in investor-owned single-family homes — gain mandatory disclosures (FMR, last sale price, computed rent ceiling), new private remedies (treble damages) and protection from retaliation, improving transparency and legal leverage.
- Local housing authorities and tenant advocates — receive a public registry and stronger enforcement options to monitor investor behavior and pursue violations.
- Prospective tenants — benefit from upfront price information in their primary language, reducing information asymmetry at lease negotiation and renewal.
- Policy analysts and researchers — the public registry and disclosure regime will produce data on investor holdings and rent-setting that can be used to evaluate market impacts.
Who Bears the Cost
- Investor landlords owning two or more single-family rentals — face revenue limits, disclosure obligations, potential fines up to $10,000, license suspensions, and the risk of treble-damage litigation.
- Property managers and small firms servicing investor portfolios — will need to implement new intake, documentation, and multilingual sworn-statement processes, raising compliance and administrative costs.
- Department of Housing and Community Development and the Office of the Attorney General — take on registry maintenance, enforcement workflows, and coordination with county authorities, creating operational demands and potential budgetary pressures.
- Counties/local housing authorities — may incur additional workload when collaborating on license suspensions and enforcement, particularly where local licensing schemes differ.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill tries to square two goals that pull in different directions: it seeks to preserve tenant affordability and transparency in a fast-growing investor-owned single-family market while imposing price and reporting constraints that limit landlord flexibility and could reduce investment incentives or prompt regulatory evasion. Reconciling tenant protection with predictable, administrable rules — without creating perverse incentives or large new enforcement costs — is the central policy dilemma.
The statute raises immediate implementation questions. The maximum-allowable calculation depends on two external data points — HUD FMR by ZIP code and the property’s last recorded sale price — that may produce divergent results and disputes over which data point is controlling in edge cases (e.g., recent flip sales, short conveyances, or stale sales records).
The bill’s requirement that landlords provide sworn disclosures in a tenant’s primary language creates clear obligations but also invites challenges about translation quality and what constitutes adequate delivery and timing of the statement before lease execution.
Enforcement design mixes strong private remedies (treble damages) with capped administrative fines and licensing consequences. That combination can accelerate litigation: tenants may opt for private suits because treble damages and attorney’s fees can be more lucrative than a single administrative fine.
At the same time, administrative enforcement depends on DHCD and the Attorney General identifying violations and coordinating with local authorities — a process that requires resource commitments not detailed in the bill. Finally, landlords might seek to restructure portfolios, change legal ownership, reclassify units, or alter fee structures to evade coverage or the caps; the statute bars explicit circumvention but leaves room for novel contractual or accounting workarounds that will test enforcement capacity.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.